Extended time is one of the most common testing accommodations provided to students with disabilities. It is also controversial; critics of extended time accommodations argue that extended time is used too readily, without concern for how it changes the skills measured by tests, leading to scores that cannot be compared fairly with those of other students. Advocates argue, instead, that many students with disabilities are only able to demonstrate their skills with extended time. This article reviews a wide variety of empirical evidence to draw conclusions about the appropriateness of extended time accommodations. The evidence reviewed raises concerns with the way that extended time accommodations are currently provided, although the same literature also points to potential solutions and best practices.
AirasianP. W.RussellM. K. (2008). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
2.
AlsterE. H. (1997). The effects of extended time on algebra test scores for college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 222–227.
3.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
4.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
5.
BarthA. E.StuebingK. K.AnthonyJ. L.DentonC. A.MathesP. G.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296–307.
6.
BerkeleyS.BenderW. N.PeasterL. G.SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95.
7.
BoltS. E. (2004, April). Using DIF analyses to examine several commonly-held beliefs about testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Diego, CA.
8.
BoltS. E.ThurlowM. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 141–152.
9.
BradenJ. P.JoyceL. B. (2008). Best practices in making assessment accommodations. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (5th ed., pp. 589–603). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
10.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
11.
BurnsE. (1998). Test accommodations for students with disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
12.
CahalanC.MandinachE. B.CamaraW. J. (2002). Predictive validity of SAT I: reasoning test for test-takers with learning disabilities and extended time accommodations. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
13.
ChristensenL. L.ThurlowM. L.WangT. (2009). Improving accommodations outcomes: Monitoring instructional and assessment accommodations for students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
14.
CizekG. J.BunchM. B. (2007). Standard setting: A guide to establishing and evaluating performance standards on tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
CohenA. S.GreggN.DengM. (2005). The role of extended time and item content on a high-stakes mathematics test. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 20, 225–233.
16.
ColkerR.MilaniA. A. (2005). The law of disability discrimination (5th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
CoxM. L.HernerJ. G.DemczykM. J.NieberdingJ. J. (2006). Provision of testing accommodations for students with disabilities on statewide assessments: Statistical links with participation and discipline rates. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 346–354.
19.
EarleS.SharpK. (2000). Disability and assessment in the UK: Should we compensate disabled students?Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 541–545.
20.
ElliottJ. L.ThurlowM. L. (2006). Improving performance of students with disabilities on district and state assessments (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
21.
ElliottS. N.MarquartA. M. (2004). Extended time as a testing accommodation: Its effects and perceived consequences. Exceptional Children, 70, 349–367.
22.
FinchH.BartonK.MeyerP. (2009). Differential item functioning analysis for accommodated versus nonaccommodated students. Educational Assessment, 14, 38–56.
23.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
24.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound testing accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16, 174–181.
25.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS.HamlettC. (2003). Dynamic assessment of test accommodations. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
26.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC.BinkleyE.CrouchR. (2000). Using objective data sources to enhance teacher judgments about test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 67, 67–81.
27.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.EatonS. B.HamlettC. L.KarnsK. (2000). Supplementing teachers’ judgments of mathematics test accommodations with objective data sources. School Psychology Review, 29, 65–85.
28.
GohD. S. (2004). Assessment accommodations for diverse learners. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29.
GordonM.AntshelK.FaraoneS.BarkleyR.LewandowskiL.HudziakJ. J.. . .CunninghamC. (2006). Symptoms versus impairment: The case for respecting DSV-IV’s Criterion D. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 465–475.
30.
GreshamF. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: From research to practice (pp. 467–519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
HaertelE. H. (2003, April). Evidentiary argument and the comparability of scores from standard versus nonstandard test administrations. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.
32.
HaertelE. H.LoriéW. A. (2004). Validating standards-based score interpretations. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 2, 61–103.
33.
HaladynaT. M.DowningS. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant variance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(1), 17–27.
34.
HandlerM. W.DuPaulG. J. (2005). Assessment of ADHD: Differences across psychology specialty areas. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 402–412.
35.
HarrisonA. G.NicholsE.LarochetteA. (2008). Investigating the quality of learning disability documentation provided by students in higher education. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 161–174.
36.
HaslamN.WilliamsB.PriorM.HaslamR.GraetzB.SawyerM. (2006). The latent structure of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A taxometric analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, 639–647.
37.
HollenbeckK. (2002). Determining when test alterations are valid accommodations or modifications for large-scale assessment. In TindalG.HaladynaT. M. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 395–425). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
HuesmanR. L.FrisbieD. A. (2000, April). The validity of ITBS reading comprehension test scores for learning disabled and non learning disabled students under extended-time conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
39.
JohnsonR. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
40.
JohnsonK. R.LayngT. V. J. (1992). Breaking the structuralist barrier: Literacy and numeracy with fluency. American Psychologist, 47, 1475–1490.
41.
JohnsonK. R.LayngT. V. J. (1996). On terms and procedures: Fluency. Behavior Analyst, 19, 281–299.
42.
KaneM. T. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17–64). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
43.
KavaleK. A. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369–426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239–256.
45.
KelmanM.LesterG. (1997). Jumping the queue: An inquiry into the legal treatment of students with learning disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46.
KiefferM. J.LesauxN. K.RiveraM.FrancisD. J. (2009). Accommodations for English language learners taking large-scale assessments: A meta-analysis on effectiveness and validity. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1168–1202.
47.
KingT. (2008, February). Designing accessible reading assessments: A summary of research. Paper presented at the meeting of the Learning Disabilities Association of America, Chicago, IL.
48.
KoonceD. A. (2007). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment practices by practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 319–333.
49.
KoretzD. M.BartonK. (2003–2004). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence. Educational Assessment, 9, 29–60.
50.
KoretzD. M.HamiltonL. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
51.
LackayeT.MargalitM.ZivO.ZimanT. (2006). Comparisons of self-efficacy, mood, effort, and hope between students with learning disabilities and their non-LD-matched peers. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 21, 111–121.
52.
LangS. C.KumkeP. J.RayC. E.CowellE. L.ElliottS. N.KratochwillT. R. (2005). Consequences of using testing accommodations: Student, teacher, and parent perceptions of and reactions to testing accommodations. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(1), 49–62.
53.
LeeJ. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
54.
LernerC. (2004). “Accommodations” for the learning disabled: A level playing field or affirmative action for elites?Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 1041–1122.
55.
LesauxN. K.PearsonM. R.SiegelL. S. (2006). The effects of timed and untimed testing conditions on the reading comprehension performance of adults with reading disabilities. Reading and Writing, 19, 21–48.
56.
LewandowskiL. J.LovettB. J.ParolinR. A.GordonM.CoddingR. S. (2007). Extended time accommodations and the mathematics performance of students with and without ADHD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 17–28.
57.
LewandowskiL. J.LovettB. J.RogersC. L. (2008). Extended time as a testing accommodation for students with reading disabilities: Does a rising tide lift all ships?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 315–324.
58.
LichtenbergJ. (2004, Fall). How the academically rich get richer. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 24(4), 19–27.
59.
LindstromJ. H. (2007). Determining appropriate accommodations for postsecondary students with reading and written expression disorders. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 22, 229–236.
60.
LindstromJ. H.GreggN. (2007). The role of extended time on the SAT for students with learning disabilities and/or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 22, 85–95.
61.
LovettB. J. (2007). Determinants of postsecondary students’ performance on timed examinations: Implications for extended time testing accommodations. Unpublished dissertation, Syracuse University.
62.
LovettB. J.LewandowskiL. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are they?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515–527.
63.
LuY.SireciS. G. (2007). Validity issues in test speededness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26(4), 29–37.
64.
MacMillanD. L.GreshamF. M.BocianK. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314–326.
65.
MandinachE. B.BridgemanB.Cahalan-LaitusisC.TrapaniC. (2005). The impact of extended time on SAT test performance (College Board Research Report 2005-8). New York, NY: College Board.
66.
MarstonD. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York, NY: Guilford.
67.
MessickS. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
68.
OfieshN. S.HughesC.ScottS. S. (2004). Extended test time and postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A model for decision making. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 19, 57–70.
69.
OfieshN. S.MatherN.RussellA. (2005). Using speeded cognitive, reading, and academic measures to determine the need for extended test time among university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 35–52.
PhillipsS. E. (1994). High-stakes testing accommodations: Validity versus disabled rights. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 93–120.
72.
PhillipsS. E. (2002). Legal issues affecting special populations in large-scale testing programs. In TindalG.HaladynaT. M. (Eds.), Large-scale assessment programs for all students: Validity, technical adequacy, and implementation (pp. 109–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73.
PhillipsS. E.CamaraW. J. (2006). Legal and ethical issues. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 733–756). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
74.
PitoniakM.RoyerJ. (2001). Testing accommodations for examinees with disabilities: A review of psychometric, legal, and social policy issues. Review of Educational Research, 71, 53–104.
75.
RanseenJ. D.ParksG. S. (2005). Test accommodations for postsecondary students: The quandary resulting from the ADA’s disability definition. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 11, 83–108.
76.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.
77.
RickeyK. M. (2005). Assessment accommodations for students with disabilities: A description of the decision-making process, perspectives of those affected, and current practices. Unpublished dissertation, University of Iowa.
78.
RunyanM. K.SmithJ. F. (1991). Identifying and accommodating learning disabled law school students. Journal of Legal Education, 41, 317–349.
79.
ShaywitzS. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York, NY: Vintage.
80.
SireciS. G.ScarpatiS. E.LiS. (2005). Test accommodations for students with disabilities: An analysis of the interaction hypothesis. Review of Educational Research, 75, 457–490.
81.
SparksR. S.LovettB. J. (2009). Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: Effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 230–239.
82.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–83.
83.
StretchL. S.OsborneJ. W. (2005). Extended time test accommodation: Directions for future research and practice. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(8), 1–8.
84.
ThompsonS. J.JohnstoneC. J.AndersonM. E.MillerN. A. (2005). Consideration for the development and review of universally designed assessments (NCEO Technical Report No. 42). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
85.
ThorntonA. E.ReeseL. M.PashleyP. J.DalessandroS. P. (2001). Predictive validity of accommodated LSAT scores (Technical Report 01-01). Newtown, PA: Law School Admission Council.
86.
ThurlowM. L.AlbusD.LiuK. K.RiveraC. (2006). State practices for reporting participation and performance of English language learners in state assessments. In RiveraC.CollumE. (Eds.), State assessment policy and practice for English language learners: A national perspective (pp. 315–426). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
87.
ThurlowM. L.LaitusisC. C.DillonD. R.CookL. L.MoenR. E.AbediJ.O’BrienD. (2009). Accessibility principles for reading assessments. Minneapolis, MN: National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects.
88.
ThurlowM. L.ThompsonS. J. (2004). Inclusion of students with disabilities in state and district assessments. In WallJ. E.WalzG. R. (Eds.), Measuring up: Assessment issues for teachers, counselors, and administrators (pp. 161–176). Greensboro, NC: CAPS.
89.
WachelkaD.KatzR. C. (1999). Reducing test anxiety and improving academic self-esteem in high school and college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 191–198.
90.
WexlerJ.VaughnS.EdmondsM.ReutebuchC. K. (2008). A synthesis of fluency interventions for secondary struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 317–347.
91.
WillinghamW. W.RagostaM.BennettR. E.BraunH.RockD. A.PowersD. E. (1988). Testing handicapped people. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
92.
WoodD. E. (2006). Modeling the relationship between oral reading fluency and performance on a statewide reading test. Educational Assessment, 11, 85–104.
93.
YovanoffP.DuesburyL.AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 4–12.
94.
ZuriffG. E. (1999, February). Accommodations for test anxiety under the ADA?Bar Examiner, 68(1), 15–24.
95.
ZuriffG. E. (2000). Extra examination time for students with learning disabilities: An examination of the maximum potential thesis. Applied Measurement in Education, 13, 99–117.
96.
ZwickR. (2006). Higher education admissions testing. In BrennanR. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 647–680). Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
